On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:20:22AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > > else if (someflag) > > dosomething(); > > > > For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually exclusive, > > as they will not make sense together with the potential flags I know, but > > that can change at some time of course. > > Yes, I see that is workable. I do feel that checking for other flags would > be a bit more robust. But as you say, there are none. So whichever > approach you prefer is fine by me. The model we have for unsupported bits in the SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS and SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS handlers is essentially this: if (flags & ~(supported_flag_mask)) return -EOPNOTSUPP; if (flags & supported_flag_1) ... if (flags & supported_flag_2) ... I suppose applying this model here would address Simon's extensibility concern.
